Pioneer Anomaly Solved

First time accepted submitter gstrickler writes "After years of work recovering and analyzing old mission data and vehicle schematics, a just published analysis(Pdf) provides strong evidence for anisotropic thermal radiation being the source of the slowing of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft. The theory isn't new, but the recovered data and new analysis provide solid evidence that at least 80% of the deceleration is accounted for by anisotropic thermal radiation. Members of The Planetary Society were instrumental in recovering the data and helping fund the analysis. The lesson is, in space, it matters what direction your heat radiating surfaces point."

Comments

Inadvertant proof of concept?

[Banichi]

Does this discovery have a relationship (however distant or inefficient) to Nuclear Lightbulb or Nuclear Photonic propulsion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb

Re:This just in

[Chris Burke]

Well actually, if they'd anticipated this and pointed the heat dissipating surfaces to the rear, Pioneer would be going faster.

I'm not sure they'd have done anything... the effect is so small, completely irrelevant for the main part of the missions, and they might have other reasons for orienting the craft a certain way -- maybe to maximize cooling. As a rule the side that emits the most photons would also be absorbing the most from the sun. I realize the situation could be more complicated than this; if it was simple the result would have been calculated a long time ago.

What I'm wondering is how many people will remove this from their "these handful of unexplained results in not fully understood circumstances mean all of physics are wrong (and my pet theory is right)" lists?

Re:This was already solved by a portuguese in 2009

[careysub]

Not exactly.

Numerous investigators have been strengthening the case for thermal radiation as the cause for nearly a decade. The work of Bertolami, Francisco, et al in Portugal in 2008-2009 accounted for 67% of the acceleration, a then-new high point in this reckoning. This was a notable result, but they didn't "figure it out" or "solve" it, they strengthened the case that was by then widely believed to be correct. For an account of the whole story up through 2010 see: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.3686v2.pdf .

The new study raises the level of confirmation to 80%, using data that they newly recovered, and further shows that the remaining 20% is not statistically significant. It is this study that deserves to be regarded as having "solved" the problem: accounting essentially for the full anomalous acceleration, and leaving no residual anomaly.